Popular Anti-Christian Myths Worth Rejecting

Oct 11, 2017

Popular Anti-Christian Myths Worth Rejecting

by Forest Antemesaris

We live in a world where truth is often seen as impossible to know or questionable at best. We’re constantly hearing buzzwords like “fake news” and “alternative facts.” Some falsehoods have deep roots and are commonly held. There are a lot of culturally common myths regarding Christianity and the existence of God.

Below is a list of common beliefs that are widely held but false. I’ve held all of them in the past and have heard them more times than I can count. I ask you to keep an open mind, and if the proof is there, reject the myths below.

Science Has Proven That God Doesn’t Exist

Many times I have heard this and reply, “which experiment was it that disproved God’s existence?” Often times it is proposed that since there is no scientific proof of God’s existence, He must not exist. But, that is not scientific proof. When Stephen Hawking was pressed on this issue, he simply replied that since we cannot know everything that God would, God cannot exist. This isn’t scientific, nor does it disprove anything.

The fact of the matter is that there is no observation or experiment to conclusively disprove God. It is put forth that science has brought us to a point that we know so much about the universe and can see that there is no need for the existence of God. Yet, science fails to answer some of the most crucial questions. How did life arise from non-living matter? Has this ever been recreated or observed? How did unconscious matter gain consciousness? Why does the universe appear to be so finely tuned? The list goes on. While science is amazing and crucial to civilization, it has not disproven God.

The Bible Has Been Heavily Corrupted

The popular claims of the Bible’s corruption span from King James’ supposed editing and Constantine’s oversight at the Council of Nicea to over-zealous scribes. But, the proof is lacking. Most modern translations are based on New Testament manuscripts that pre-date King James and even Constantine.

When scholars compare these earlier manuscripts with translations post-Constantine the differences are marginal and rarely significant. The bottom line is, there is enough evidence and manuscript support for us to be confident in what the original text said, and this is expressed in most modern English translations…